If the current escalation of tension continues, and if mutual hostility continues to mount on the Korean Peninsula, one should be legitimately concerned of the possibility of a costly confrontation between them, limited or all out. With all lines of communication cut off and the abrogation of all economic agreements between the North and South, Korea once again is in a crisis of war, perhaps the most dangerous one so far.

It is terrifying to listen to harsh statements or to watch confrontational actions by the leaders in Pyongyang and Seoul. The North Korean authorities are notorious for employing belligerent rhetoric, which has been largely dismissed like "the boy who cried wolf." What if the wolf may indeed show up this time? It is shocking that the leaders seem ready to accept the horrendous consequences of war.

In the wake of the adoption of the UNSC resolution 2270 against the DPRK ― the toughest in 20 years and characterized by a virtual air and maritime blockade, prohibiting trade and denying access to international financial services ― Pyongyang rejected the resolution that also bars its continued nuclear and missile development program, which the North reconfirmed it would continue.

Also in response to the joint U.S.-ROK annual military drills, now being conducted in their largest scale in recent years, the DPRK has been firing a new type of multiple rocket launcher and short-range missiles on the East Coast. In a series of statements, the North Korean regime claimed that its military has deployed nuclear weapons equipped with a miniaturized device and it is ready to use them against the South and the United States, in a preemptive strike if necessary.

The U.S. and South Korea are carrying out a full-dress rehearsal under OPLN 2016, designed to repel a North Korean invasion, to strike the targets of nuclear hideouts and missile bases, and to attack the North Korean leadership. As part of the operational plan, a preemptive strike is not ruled out.

Now, both sides are considering the option of a preemptive or preventive strike. The question is who is to judge beforehand that an attack, conventional or nuclear, is imminent from the other side. The theory of a preemptive strike is justified only in terms of self-defense, which legitimizes the centuries-old right to a "just war" or the right to use force allowed under the U.N. Charter. The side that might trigger a war by a preemptive strike would claim it did so in self defense.

Korea is in a very dangerous situation: yet, the people on both sides go about business as usual. It is astonishing that they do not seem concerned enough, perhaps ostensibly, about the mounting tensions on the peninsula that can drag them into a military confrontation that might result in unbearable consequences to them all.

The sanctions against North Korea, by the U.N., EU and individual countries including the U.S., South Korea, and Japan, will certainly contribute to undermining the ability of the DPRK to continue developing its nuclear and missile program. However, given the loopholes ― placed in consideration of "humanitarian and livelihood purposes" and an intent against "adverse consequences for the civilian population" ― it is unclear whether the sanctions ― even if carried out fully by China as well ― would bring back the North Koreans to negotiations for denuclearization.

The most recent U.N. resolution, too, is all about sanctions, with only two of its 52 main provisions about "diplomatic resolution" and the resumption of the six-party talks. South Korea, the U.S., and the rest of the international community are focused on implementing the U.N. resolution or imposing additional unilateral sanctions. These sanctions are likely to hurt the livelihood of the North Korean people before they affect the interest of their leadership, hell-bent on improving its nuclear arsenal.

Except for China, no country is talking about the need for dialogue. After Wang Yi's phone call with John Kerry on March 9, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said, "China calls on all parties to keep calm, exercise restraint and avoid provoking each other" in the "highly charged situation" on the peninsula. He further called on "all parties to refrain from aggravating tensions."

Of course, China is acting in its own strategic interest for a stable Korean Peninsula. China has recently proposed a two-track discussion ― the negotiation of denuclearization in parallel with the discussion of a peace agreement. Chinese foreign minister Wang also said on March 8 that China is open to a flexible format of talks that may involve three, four, or five parties. China clearly stands out as an advocate for dialogue, as Washington and its allies show little interest in engaging the North except in "meaningful and credible" denuclearization talks.

Diplomacy should be more than just about sanctions and military armament. In theory and practice, negotiation is the ultimate task of diplomacy to resolve disputes without use of force. One does not have to be a pacifist ― "a principled, pragmatic or semi-pacifist" ― to oppose war and support peace. There should be better ways forward to the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. Confrontation should be the last resort.

History shows that pacifism ― against war, violence, or military ― has failed to prevent state leaders from going to war. War ends lives and destroys properties. The Korean War alone killed millions of people and reduced the divided land to ashes. If war breaks out again, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans would be killed in the first few hours of conflict.

To avert this crisis, both Koreas, in particular, should heed China's advice to restrain from mutual provocation and manage tensions by returning to peaceful coexistence and going back to peace talks. The value of peace should not be forgotten. What's your take?

Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Korean-American Studies. He can be contacted at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.